ZIKLAG

 

    

                          I Samuel 30   (collage, 1992)

 This city figures in to events taking place over a long period of time, from the reign of Saul to the return from the Babylonian Exile. But there still is some doubt regarding the exact location of that town.

“Ziklag appears in Jos. xv. 31 as being near the Edomite boundary, in the south of Judah. It was apportioned to the Simeonites, but later fell into Philistine hands. David, when a Philistine vassal, ruled it and was later able to retain and incorporate it in his own realm. It remained in the hands of Judah in both pre-exilic and post-exilic times. Tentative locations are Zuhailika and Tell al-Khuwailifa, the latter more favored by modern scholars.” (D.F. Payne) One such scholar is Pfeiffer, who locates the site as being “in the Negeb about twenty-five miles southeast of Gaza.”

 One the other hand, Tsumura (as well as McCarter) says that “the site may be the modern Tell esh-Sheriah, about 20 miles east-southeast of Gaza.” He personally doubts it is Tell el-Khuwalifa “since that tell seems to be located within the territory of Judah rather than that of the Philistines.”

And just to add to the list of possibilities, Myers identifies Ziklag with En-rimmon.

But in an article in the Winter 2025 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, coauthors Kyle H. Keimer, Gil Davis, Saar Ganor, and Yosef Garfinkel suggest another strong possibility:

“Over the years, scholars have identified Ziklag with more than a dozen sites in southern Israel; most can be disqualified on geographical, archaeological, or chronological grounds. Although some good possibilities remain, Khirbet al-Rai offers the strongest evidence for being biblical Ziklag. Geographically, it fits the description provided by the biblical text (Joshua 15:31; 19:5; 1 Samuel 27:6; 30:1, 14, 26; 1 Chronicles 4:30; 12:1, 20). Chronologically, it was occupied during the periods in which Ziklag was mentioned by the biblical authors. Archaeologically, it has a destruction layer dated to the late 11^th or early 10^th century, which corresponds nicely with the period of time in which the Bible says the Amelekites 'burned' Ziklag as retribution for David's earlier raids against them (1 Samuel 27:8-9; 30:1). Perhaps most important, there is a distinct change in material culture in the late 11^th and early 10^th centuries at Khirbed al-Rai, from a mixed Canaanite / Philistine culture to one that is distinctly Judahite. Indeed, its continued Judahite identity throughout the rest of the Iron Age seems to be remembered in 1 Samuel 27:6, which says that Ziklag belonged to the kings of Judah 'until this day.,' likely referring to the contemporary seventh-century setting in which the account was written.”

Another noted scholar commenting on the time of writing of that phrase says it “could refer, as the earliest possibility, to the time of Rehoboam of the late tenth century B.C.” (Tsumura)

Joshua 15:31; 19:5

This city first appears in the biblical chronicles in the book of Joshua. Whereas Joshua 13:8-17:18 is the first phase of land allotment, chapters 18-19 reflect the second phase.

I Samuel 27:6

The Philistine ruler rewards David for his supposed loyalty by giving him the city of Ziklag as his own. McCarter explains, “The granting of landed properties to favored servants was a common part of the feudal economy of the city-states of the ancient Near Eastern Bronze Age.”

As to the effect of this on David, Baldwin says: “From every point of view it was good that David should move away from Achish's capital, but especially because he needed freedom to operate his own independent policy without being observed too closely...From David's point of view Ziklag had the advantage of being well away from Saul's territory and isolated from the Philistine pentapolis...Achish stood to gain from leaving David's army to protect his southern territory; he may also have hoped to have won the support of Judah against Saul, which might have enabled him to take the whole land, as he very nearly did in the battle of Mount Gilbaeh (1 Sa. 31:7).”

“When David went raiding from Ziklag, 'he did not leave a man or a woman alive' (1 Sam 27:11), and when the Amalekites raided Ziklag, they captured all the women and children related to David's troop.” (Evans)

David's actions may seem rather bloodthirsty, but remember that he did not dare to leave behind any Amalekites alive who could possibly inform David's overlords, the Philistines, about his double-dealing. For the fact was that David fully utilized his position at Ziklag, not mainly to serve the Philistines but instead to serve as “a kind of unofficial policeman or protector of Judah.” (McCarter)

As to the underlying importance of this chapter, McCarter says that “the entire Ziklag pericope may be said to demonstrate a historical bias for a bond between David and the people of the Judahite Negeb as surely as the preceding stories do for the Wilderness of Judah and specifically the area east of Hebron. Taken together these material prepare us for II Sam 2:1-4, the proclamation of David as king of Judah.”

I Samuel 30:1,14,26

Stern: “King Saul made a concerted effort to destroy Amalek, following the prophet Samuel's call for the ban (1 Sam. 15), but enough Amalekites survived to destroy David's city of Ziklag (1 Sam. 30.1). Nevertheless, after Ziklag the Amalekites ceased to trouble Israel. 1 Chronicles 4.42-43 depicts the tribe of Simeon as eradicating the remnant of Amalek, fulfilling God's earlier promise.”

“The sight of a burnt-out, totally deserted town [as illustrated in the collage above] was more than the troops could bear...David...was held responsible for the disaster, 'for the people spoke of stoning him.' Never since his flight from Gibeah and Saul had David stood so alone..Far from blaming God for allowing the destruction of the city, David took the reprisal of the Amelekites as one of life's hazards, in which he could draw on the resources of a faithful covenant Lord.” (Baldwin)

Tsumura echoes this last thought: “In this situation [30:1] David strengthened himself in the Lord, his God. Only the intimate relationship with his personal God gave him strength in such a critical time.”

Seibert: “David...recovers people and possessions taken by the Amalekites in a raid on Ziklag (1 Sam 30:18-19).”

“David reflects Saul's generosity after the battle of Ziklag (1 Sam 30:21-25)...” (C.J.H. Wright)

II Samuel 1:1, 4:10

Ziklag is again mentioned in this first verse of II Samuel where David receives the news of the deaths of Saul and Jonathan. The news is delivered by an Amelekite who has travelled roughly 80 miles to David's outpost to tell him, hoping to thus obtain an important position in David's kingdom or another reward. This Amelekite even brags untruthfully that he was the one who personally dispatched Saul. The reader knows this is a lie from I Samuel 31. “So on the first page of another biblical book we run straight into the God who exposes us, who delights in truth in the inward parts (Ps 51:6), who sets our secret sins in the light of his presence (Ps. 90:8).” (D. R. Davis)

Davis also points out that there is an almost identical story found in I Samuel 4 in which two commanders of the forces of Ishbaal, son of Saul, decide to murder him in order to get into David's good graces. But instead of a reward for their deed, they are put to death by him instead. As McCarter says, “Their treachery is born not of revenge but of crass opportunism and the hope of a reward from David...Thus we see that “David...was reluctant to press his own interests at the expense of the house of Saul, for whom he continued to carry respect and loyalty.” After all, David fully kept in mind that God Himself had chosen Saul to be the king of Israel.

I Chronicles 4:30; 12:1,20

“This list of Simeonite settlements [in verse 4:30] is drawn with only slight changes from Jos. 19:2-8.” (Williamson)

And Howard notes: “The genealogy of Simeon [I Chron. 4] (24-43) is very fragmentary and this reflects the fact that it lost its tribal identity very early, becoming absorbed into Judah...The final portion of the chapter deals with the Simeonite chiefs who were forced to migrate due to overpopulation and lack of pasture, suggesting a semi-nomadic type of life to a late date.”

Concerning I Chron. 12:1-7, Ellison states that it “gives a list of Benjamites (v. 2) who supported David. They are mentioned first because their action was the more remarkable when we consider that Saul belonged to their tribe. A comparison of v. 1 with vv. 8,16 shows that they were not the first to join David in point of time.”

Williamson: “As for the chronological setting of the material [in I Chron. 11-12] is concerned.., the Chronicler ordered his material by theme rather than strict historical order...Rather we should observe that, according to the geographical indications supplied, the material is arranged in a chiastic [i.e., mirror-image] structure,” as in Figure 1 below:

    1. Hebron (11:10)

        2. Ziklag (12:1)

            3. The Stronghold (12:8)

            3'. The Stronghold (12:16)

        2'. Ziklag (12:20)

    1'. Hebron (12:23)

This is an important observation in that this sort of arrangement of material in the Old and New Testament often follows a topical scheme rather than one which is strictly chronological. So again see here that exact chronological order in the Bible is not necessarily to be expected. Instead there may be some more topical arrangement at work.

Howard's comments on Chapter 12 are as follows: “These lists seem to be drawn from very early material...The evidence of such large-scale defections to David indicates how it was possible for him to secure the throne immediately after Saul's death. The process, however, was under the hand of God, a point the Chronicler emphasizes in the use of the words of Amasai, For your God will help you 12:18).”

Nehemiah 11:28

This verse is the last one in the Old Testament to mention Ziklag. “The verses [i.e. 11:25-36] list towns and villages in the former territories of Judah (vv. 25-30) and Benjamin (vv. 31-36). No reason can be given for the non-mention of important settlements mentioned elsewhere in Ezra and Nehemiah.” (Cundall)

Fensham: “Much has been written on the origin of this list of cities...The real problem with this list is that it creates the impression that the Jews lived in a much larger area than expected. The question is whether this list delineates the limits of the Persian province of Judah...It seems better to assume that some of the cities listed refer to areas with a partially Jewish population. The Jews are citizens of the Persian empire and could move to and fro in the different provinces.”

“I Chron ix attributes the list to the time of the return; Neh xi to that following the completion of the rebuilding the wall.” (Myers) Concerning verses 25-36 specifically, he states, “Evidently the writer was concerned primarily with relating how, after the reconstruction of the wall and the consequent multiplication of space, the authorities put on a campaign to repopulate the capital. That move emphasized the other side of the matter, namely, that many of the people were content to live in the outlying areas of Judah.” He speculates that the list could refer “to those who were not too eager to move to Jerusalem.”